Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jmason
From: jmason@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason)
Subject: Re: Communications ACM format
Message-ID: <1991May16.125546.2302@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Science Undergraduate Student
References: <528o21w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu> <objtch.674377844@extro>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 12:55:46 GMT

In article <objtch.674377844@extro> objtch@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Goodall) writes:
>
>Sorry folks,
>I think that a full page of fat black type that says:
>
>	MINIMAL
>	SPACE,
>	AVERAGE
>	LINEAR
>	TIME
>	DUPLICATION
>	DELETION
>
>Is over-the-top. Give me a gently flashier version of Scientific
>American's layout any time. The artists have gone crazy, and forgotten
>about readability.

	Agreed.  And the silly little checkerboard lines at the top of
some of the pages are annoying.  The table of contents uses too many
colors, and the entries are not separated by any whitespace.  Most of the
tables and digrams are places badly and so clutter the articles.
Furthermore, the tables have too much color, so they distract you from
the text fo the article.  The quotations lifted from the text are too
colorful, or in

		W   W   AAA   Y   Y           too 
                W   W  A   A   Y Y
                W   W  AAAAA    Y           L A R G E
                W W W  A   A    Y
                 W W   A   A    Y           t y p e

(see what I mean? :-).  The title pages for the article, which contain
nothing but a full page of graphics, are annoying.  What's worse, the
first page of the actual article *does not* contain the title, let alone
an abstract.  The text of the article does not consistently start on 
the correct (right-hand) side of the page.  Those really big, really
low-contrast letters, with type on top of them (pp 26-27 of April 91) are
really annoying.  The constant change of fonts (p 112, then p 113 of
April) is ugly.  The ENTIRE PARAGRAPH of bold on p113 is bad, despite the
fact that this non-seriffed already-too-wide font makes bold not very
visible.

	About fonts:  Ask Borland.  They used the most readable font in
CACM, on the back-cover obnoxious ad.  Or look in Computing Surverys.  A
good Times Roman -- very readable.

	But what *really* makes CACM unreadable, worse than *all* of the
above, is the *glossy paper*.  I have a great deal of trouble reading 
*anything* if there is glare reflecting in my face from the glossy paper.
Computer Communication Review manages to use glossy-feel paper with low
glare.  Computing Surveys does not use glossy paper.

	CACM does not need to try for a Scientific American look.  A
Computing Surveys look (sans the 7 x 10 size and the table of contents on
the cover) would be GREAT.  Computing surveys displays a refreshing
*lack* of color (the only color is on the cover), a *small* selection of
fonts, all readable, page numbers at the top, article titles in a *sane*
font right next to them, and almost *no* use of fonts more than twice or
less than 2/3 the size of the base font.

	And *I WANT PROGRAMMING PEARLS BACK* !  Maybe it will becomce a
regular column in Computing Surverys, where I will be able to read it.
:-)

Jamie  ...  Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Written On  Thursday, May 16, 1991  at  08:52:28am EDT

P.S.  It's may 16th and I still have not received my May CACM.  Maybe
this is a sign that they delayed production to iron out some of the
sillyness we have been complaining about here.  We shall see.
